|User’s votes are weighted by their contribution to the site (log10 contribution). In addition, the user who created the observation gets an extra vote.|
|I’d Call It That||3.0||27.31||5||(Alan Rockefeller,Gerhard,shroomydan,...,...)|
sum(score * weight) /
(total weight + 1)
It’s all about how you place the lights.
Congartulations! I picked up the new “Book of Fungi” yesterday and noticed that two of your pictures in that book were accredited to you. So another example that those pictures were “taken” and “made” into publication.
I agree, and I primarily referenced digital formats because 1) it is what I use and 2) the manipulation possible (both before and after the shutter is opened and closed) is of a wider variety and finer scale in digital than in traditional film.
I don’t think there are many practical differences between ‘taken’ and ‘made’ but I think there are significant implications for people’s understanding of the process. Often when non-photographers look at nice photos, they say ‘Wow you must have a great camera’, which really gets my goat.
So much effort on the photographer’s part (framing, lighting, making technical decisions and post-processing, not to mention crouching in awkward positions for 30 seconds at a time holding reflectors for hours a day) is implicitly ignored in that statement of praise, despite usually being well-intentioned.
I think your characterization of the images produced by digital cameras (images “made” as opposed to “taken”) additionally applies to the older film formats (e.g., 35mm) and probably paintings and drawings as well.
Do you agree?
Did you confine your comments to digital cameras because that is primarily what is being used currently?
Also, what do you take to be the important difference between images being “made” verses being “taken”?
“Taken” in this context seems to imply greater precision in communicating what the experience was like for the photographer but the very act of taking a picture (deciding what to include, how to light, how to arrange) seems to be akin to the photograph being “made”.
All photographs are made and there is no avoiding that.
Some photographs merely differ in how they capture the carnival colors characteristic of mushrooms.
Any image coming out of a digital camera is “made” much more than it is “taken”.
Photoshop can be used to many ends, and what matters most is that we take a moment to
sort out our priorities in the kinds of photos we make.
It always makes me cringe when people assume that Photoshop is only a tool to make photos look less real. Anyone who assumes that the photo that comes straight from the camera is as accurate as it gets is fooling themselves. A camera sensor is a far cry from the human eye, and introduces all sorts of inaccuracies. Many cameras are pre-set to do this i.e. to over saturate because that’s what the “point and shoot” public apparently prefers. I adjust most of my images in Photoshop, a least a little, to make the subjects look more like they did to my eye, not to trick them up. A flash on the other hand is a tool that all too often diminishes the accuracy of the image…making it look more dramatic, but usually not more accurate.
This mushroom was illuminated with a mix of cool-white light from an LED floodlight, flash (camera turned upside down), and ambient sun filtered through a green canopy. I never use photoshop, though I will adjust the levels using the camera software if a photo is underexposed.
This photo was not adjusted at all – yes it really looked like that in my shroomy spot-light :)
but in realiter they are beauties nevertheless – deep crimson, shining apple boletes with prominent furrows on stipe – ah, how I love and worship those guys. I’m glad I saw plenty of them during my ten days stay in Maggie Valley in the Smokies and sure want to return somewhen!!!
When I glanced at a low res version of this image I thought it was a bad photoshop job! However, when I look at the full image I see it’s an effect of the way Dan used the flash.
I still want to see one of these in real life.
It’s simply stunning …
I understand completely.
but the colors I saw looked different…
this is truly psychedelic
He was amazed by the vivid colors ;)
Created: 2011-07-25 22:02:18 CDT (-0400)
Last modified: 2011-07-27 06:01:00 CDT (-0400)
Viewed: 334 times, last viewed: 2016-11-15 09:10:48 CST (-0500)